Economics and Business Letters 6(1), 1-5, 2017
The tangibility effect of paper money and coin in an investment experiment
Junyi Shen1,2* • Hiromasa Takahashi3
1 Research Institute for Economics and Business Administration, Kobe University, Japan 2 School of Economics, Shanghai University, China
3 Faculty of International Studies, Hiroshima City University, Japan
Received: 23 June 2016 Revised: 18 January 2017 Accepted: 25 January 2017
Abstract
In this study, we conducted a simple self-control investment experiment to investigate the tangibility effect of paper money and coin. We found that, compared to the non-cash condition, physically holding either paper money or coin made subjects significantly less likely to participate in the investment experiment and those who did participate invested significantly less. In addition, an aversion towards coin in small investments and a gender difference in investment decision were found.
Keywords: tangibility effect; paper money; coin; experiment
JEL Classification Codes: C91, D03
1. Introduction
Does holding cash physically in one’s hand per se significantly change one’s economic behavior? It seems that this topic has been somewhat neglected in the economics literature but has gradually begun to attract interest from behavioral economists. So far, only a very few studies have investigated this issue experimentally. Reinstein and Riener (2012) examined the tangibility effect as well as the windfall effect in a dictator game experiment. They found that the dictators gave significantly less to the respondents when their endowment was in cash than when their endowment was only displayed on a computer screen. Shen and Takahashi (2013) conducted two ultimatum game experiments and found that proposers offered more and responders rejected less frequently in the cash sessions than in the token sessions.
Moreover, two quite recent studies dealt somewhat with the tangibility effect in public goods experiments. Myrseth et al. (2015) found a strong positive association between cooperation and self-control, and a negative association between cooperation and impulsivity in treatments
* Corresponding author. E-mail: [email protected].
Citation: Shen, J. and Takahashi, H. (2017) The tangibility effect of paper money and coin in an investment experiment, Economics and Business Letters, 6(1), 1-5.
that rendered money more tangible. Wang and Qin (2015) introduced punishment into a public goods game and found that cash penalties were significantly more effective than electronic cash-exchangeable penalties.
Most of the above studies stated that holding cash physically caused subjects to be more self-interested and/or more risk-averse. For a detailed discussion and explanation on this tangibility effect of cash, see Reinstein and Riener (2012) and Shen and Takahashi (2013). In this study, we investigate whether this effect also exists in a simple self-control experiment regarding making an investment decision. We introduce two kinds of cash – paper money and coin – into the experiment to compare subjects’ behaviors in cash environments with those in a non-cash environment (see the detailed introduction in the next section). Concerning the effect of coin on subjects’ behaviors, Vandoros (2013) designed two experiments to examine how money denomination and the choice between or availability of coins and banknotes influenced consumers’ purchasing behavior. His results showed that, first, for small amounts of money, consumers might prefer a smaller monetary value in banknotes to a higher value in coins; and second, people carrying coins were more likely to make a purchase of small value than people not carrying coins. Both experimental results demonstrate an aversion towards coins. Therefore, we also expect to see coins play some role in our experiment.
2. Experimental design
We conducted an experiment that included two questionnaires and a simple self-control investment experiment at Hiroshima City University in July and October 2015. Before the investment experiment, we asked all subjects to answer two questionnaires1 and offered each subject a reward of 1000 JPY for completing them2. The overall experiment consisted of three sessions which differed with regard to the method of paying the 1000 JPY reward for filling out the questionnaires. In the first and second sessions, which we named the Paper Money session and the Coin session, 1000 JPY in paper money and 1000 JPY in coin, respectively, were directly given to the subjects. In the third session, named the Non-cash session, we only told the subjects that they would receive 1000 JPY and payment was eventually conducted after the experiment.
The procedure of the Paper Money session is as follows. When subjects arrived at the scheduled classroom (Room 1), they were asked to answer the questionnaires. When they finished, they were asked to go to another room (Room 2) to receive their payment. At Room 2, subjects received a written experimental instruction and an envelope containing one 1000- yen bill. When subjects finished reading the instruction by themselves, one experimenter took them one by one to another room (Room 3). When a subject arrived at Room 3, one experimenter asked him/her whether he/she would participate in the investment experiment. If not, the subject would be asked to take the 1000 JPY and leave the room. If so, the subject would be asked to decide how much to invest in units of 10 JPY, write down that amount on a record sheet, and press the button of a dice-rolling machine. The return on the investment was determined by the number shown on one die. Rolls of 4, 5, and 6 meant that the investment amount would be multiplied by 2, and rolls of 1, 2, and 3 meant that the investment amount would be multiplied by 03. After the return on the investment amount was settled, the subject
1 The contents of questionnaires are about food-purchasing decisions and choices of payment schemes. None of questions were relevant to the purpose of this study.
2 The purpose of letting subjects answer questionnaires and receive payment is to avoid the so-called windfall gain effect. For details on this effect, see Cherry et al. (2002), Oxoby and Spraggon (2008), and Reinstein and Riener (2012).
3 The expected return on any investment amount is zero.
left Room 3 and the next subject was brought into the room to perform the investment experiment.
The procedures of the Coin and Non-cash sessions were identical to that of the Paper Money session except that subjects were given an envelope containing 1000 JPY in coin (one 500-yen coin, four 100-yen coins, one 50-yen coin, and five 10-yen coins) in Room 2 in the Coin session and subjects were just told in Room 2 that they would receive 1000 JPY in the Non-cash session.
In total, 208 subjects participated in the experiment: three groups of 65, 68, and 75 for the Paper Money, Coin, and Non-cash sessions, respectively. Including answering the questionnaires and being paid, each subject spent about 25 minutes. Subjects earned, on average, 1044 JPY (about 8.7 USD, using 1 USD = 120 JPY).
3. Results
Table 1 describes the subjects’ investment behaviors in the three sessions and Table 2 reports the regression results obtained from the Heckman selection model (Heckman, 1979) by using maximum likelihood estimates. The Heckman selection model includes two equations – the selection equations which applies the Probit model and the investment equation which applies the Ordinary Least Squares (OLS). The dependent variable in the Probit model is defined as a dummy variable which equals to 1 if the subject participated in the investment experiment and 0 if not; and that in the OLS model is the amount invested in the experiment. The independent variables including a dummy variable of the Paper Money session, a dummy variable of the Coin session, and a dummy variable of male are the same in both equations.
As shown in the rightmost two columns of Table 2, results of the selection equation to estimate the probability of attending the experiment suggest that subjects in the Paper Money and Coin sessions were significantly less likely to participate in the investment experiment, compared to their counterparts in the Non-cash session. This result is consistent with the observations provided in Table 1 showing that the percentage of subjects who invested zero was the highest in the Paper Money session (60.00%), followed by the Coin session (47.06%) and the Non-cash session (44.00%). Meanwhile, the significantly positive parameter of the Male dummy indicates that men were more likely to participate in the investment experiment.
Results of the investment equation presented in the second and third columns of Table 2 indicate that subjects who selected to participate in the investment experiment invested significantly less in the Paper Money and Coin sessions than in the Non-cash session. The result that male subjects invested significantly more than females supports previous evidence that women are more risk-averse than men (Charness and Gneezy, 2012; Harris et al., 2006).
Although Chi-squared tests after the Heckman selection model estimation suggest that there are no differences between the Paper Money session and Coin session, either in the probability of participating in the investment experiment or in the investment amount (both p values > 0.20), we found that the percentage of less-than-half investments was significantly higher in the Coin session than in the Paper Money session (p = 0.08, one-tailed proportion test)4, which may serve as evidence supportive of an aversion to coin in small amounts as found in Vandoros (2013)5.
4 The percentage of less-than-half investments in the Coin session was also higher than in the Non-cash session (p = 0.05, one-tailed proportion test).
5 It would be interesting to replace the 500-yen coin with five 100-yen coins and investigate whether the aversion to coin in small amounts still exists. We leave this as a future task.
Table 1. Summary of the investment experiment.
Investment range (endowment = 1000 JPY) Paper Money Coin Non-cash
= 1000 JPY 9.23% 10.29% 13.33%
510 – 990 JPY 0.00% 1.47% 2.67%
= 500 JPY 12.31% 7.35% 14.67%
10 – 490 JPY 18.46% 33.82% 25.33%
= 0 (did not attend) 60.00% 47.06% 44.00%
Number of subjects 65 68 75
Average investment amount (JPY) 196.92 222.06 273.69
Table 2. Regression results of Heckman selection model by using maximum likelihood estimates.
Investment equation Selection equation
Coefficient Robust S.E. Coefficient Robust S.E.
Paper Money –222.327*** 76.092 –0.473*** 0.168
Coin –108.014* 63.200 –0.230* 0.137
Male 397.343*** 65.519 0.845*** 0.148
Constant 50.000*** 0.000
log pseudolikelihood –855.327
Observations 208
Notes: S.E. denotes standard error. Paper Money, Coin, and Male are dummy variables. * p < 0.10. ** p < 0.05.
*** p < 0.01.
4. Concluding remarks
This study has three main findings. First, holding cash physically does significantly change subjects’ behaviors by way of decreasing their likelihood of participating in an investment experiment and their investment amount when they do participate. Second, aversion towards coin in small amounts does exist for small investments. Third, although the expected return on any amount of investment was designed to be zero, men were more likely to participate in the experiment and invested more than women when participating. All the results are interesting, but their robustness needs to be verified by additional future studies.
One limitation of the present study is that our subjects were all students. It would be more interesting and important to study non-student subjects with different socioeconomic backgrounds. Research with non-student pools suggests that students might not be very representative of the larger society (Carpenter et al., 2004). Therefore, future studies could be conducted that recruit members from other sections of society.
Acknowledgements Financial support from the Japanese Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and Technology through Grants-in-aid for Scientific Research (C) 25380234 and 15K03353 is gratefully acknowledged.
References
Carpenter, J.P., Daniere, A.G. and Takahashi, L.M. (2004) Cooperation, trust, and social capital in Southeast Asian urban slums, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 55, 505-531.
Charness, G. and Gneezy, U. (2012) Strong evidence for gender differences in risk taking, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 83, 50-58.
Cherry, T., Frykblom, P. and Shogren, J. (2002) Hardnose the dictator, American Economic Review, 92(4), 1218-1221.
Harris, C.R., Jenkins, M. and Glaser, D. (2006) Gender differences in risk assessment: Why do women take fewer risks than men?, Judgment and Decision Making, 1(1), 48-63.
Heckman, J. (1979) Sample selection bias as a specification error, Econometrica, 47(1), 153- 161.
Myrseth, K.O.R., Riener, G. and Wollbrant, C. (2015) Tangible temptation in the social dilemma: Cash, cooperation, and self-control, Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology, and Economics, 8(2), 61-77.
Oxoby, R. and Spraggon, J. (2008) Mine and yours: property rights in dictator games, Journal of Economic Behavior and Organization, 65, 703-713.
Reinstein, D. and Riener, G. (2012) Decomposing desert and tangibility effects in a charitable giving experiment, Experimental Economics, 15, 229-240.
Shen, J. and Takahashi, H. (2013) A cash effect in ultimatum game experiments, Journal of Socio-Economics, 47, 94-102.
Vandoros, S. (2013) My five pounds are not as good as yours, so I will spend them, Experimental Economics, 16, 546-559.
Wang, S. and Qin, X. (2015) The effect of digitalization on penalty payments: An experimental investigation, Journal of Neuroscience, Psychology, and Economics, 8(4), 250-261.